No, it’s not what you think…

I admit that I’m somewhat new to commenting on politics, so bear with me if you’ve heard this one before…but I think this needs some serious (re)consideration.

We all know the aphorisms that lawmaking and sausage making are best left unwitnessed, but we have been actively engaged in discourse all this year that demands that our representatives in Congress be more honest and ‘transparent’ with their process of making laws–especially when it deals with one-sixth of the economy and our very lives.  I think we, and they, have missed an important point:  this is the way things are because Congress knows no (different or) better way to do it.  You can make a very strong case that the Democrats are intentionally stretching their own rules, and common sense, to the breaking point–but this is the way they’ve done things for a very long time.

I come from a background which lays things to be accomplished out in specifications, or in a design.  The design has an overall architecture, or framework, and then the details are filled in by comparing various factors.  The process of selecting the details comes by many names:  trade studies, optimization, requirements verification…but the net effect is the same: the details are tested against the overall architecture/design and those that don’t match are tossed out.  Finally, all the details are put together in a cohesive whole and compared to the specification or design.  It’s detail intensive, sometimes stressful and maddening, but in the end, the final ‘thing’ meets the need.

There seems to be no similar mechanism in law making.  Despite cries that ‘there ought to be a law’ followed by a stampede of hearings and committee meetings, it seems pretty obvious that the final result is never compared to the original specification, design, or intent.  Thus, you get a great idea — all children in the US deserve access to the same education– and it metastasizes into No Child Left Behind and completely misses the boat.  Or you get an idea –to allow faith based organizations the freedom from needless regulation so that they can provide services to those truly in need — and you end up with the complete collapse of compassionate conservatism….only to find it replaced by corrupt and ineffective leftist organizations.

My point is this: on Health Care,  the people have communicated to their representatives a set of design requirements.  Admittedly, the requirements are heavily conflicted in some essential areas, but the point of the discourse should be to gain consensus on the requirements BEFORE the representatives sit down to craft the means to meet those requirements.

If we can’t gain consensus on the design, it makes no sense to slog through the process of writing a gargantuan bill that no one can (or will) actually read.  If there are serious sticking points, such as public option vs private option, those points should be negotiated; only if negotiation reaches an impasse should we then resort to writing two competing bills and have a ‘vote off.’

But the fundamental thing that is missing in our current situation is that there is no useful way to compare the bills to their specification–so we resort to arguments of emotion and feeling rather than fact.

Given where we are in the process, we must insist that those who are proposing the bills before the House and Senate must demonstrate how the bills meet the specification–not merely the cost:

• If the proponents cannot show us that we have given access to health care to those that we are insisting must have it, we should go no further.
• If the proponents cannot explain how we will reduce the cost of Medicare by hundreds of billions without sacrificing quality of care to those who need it, we must insist that they stop (after we have asked them why we can’t effect those savings now!).
• If the proponents cannnot rationally explain how penalizing the very people we are seeking to help (those uninsured) by levying taxes against them, we should go no further.
• If the proponents cannot rationally explain how levying further costs on small businesses and employers will not cause even further damage to the economy, we should go no further.

We simply cannot let up in opposition to this poorly thought out hodge-podge of law that we see before us. There is no possible way to ‘reconcile’ the House and Senate variations of these bills using the same old political deal making and arm twisting–this effort is simply too important to our future to leave it to that.

We must make our opposition stand on strong foundations of fact and logic, dare I say, to “intelligent design.”

At the same time, we have to recognize the powerfully negative emotions associated with being without access to health care when it is needed.  The First Lady is showing that the Democrats intend to pull on emotions to cloud the issue in order to gain support for their approach.  We need to acknowledge the emotion and counter with reassurances:

• no one is left without emergency care when it is needed now.
• unleashing creativity and market forces will give a better result than a bureaucracy every time.  The President bumped into this when he compared the Post Office to FedEx, and we should drive home that point.

Instapundit highlights a WP article by Robin Givhans that sneers at the Town Hall attendees because of their casual dress.  I’m fascinated that the WP has to bring in its fashionistas to the fray on health care to point their fingers at ordinary Americans exercising their rights–I take this to signal their despair and anguish over the fate of the program.

Glenn did his usual terrific job skewering Ms. Givhans as a snob, but I think his post missed a key point in her article.  She writes:

…the ugly American images coming out of these town hall shouting matches resonate in a way that does the nation no favors. It highlights the obvious disconnect between the politicians and the people they represent.(emphasis added).

Once again, liberals seem to worry more about our image abroad than the substance of the debate. Givhans is concerned more about the display of the disconnect between the Beltway and the nation and its impact on world opinion (or whatever) than she seems to be about the impact to all of our lives.

She really seems to be oblivious to the whole “We the People” idea.

When Erick put out the invite to the Red State gathering on August 1, I figured it would be a great way to connect with folks who have similar interests and gain more insight about them.  Since it would be in my own metro area, it would be easy to attend.

What I found when I arrived on Saturday morning was way beyond my expectations (couldn’t make the prelims on Friday, now much to my dismay).   For starters, there were a lot more Red Staters than I figured would be there.  The group of speakers that Erick rounded up were completely impressive, and the event went off pretty smoothly, in spite of flight delays and minimal staff. As the day progressed, we found that the ‘event staff’ was pretty much just Caleb, and he did a great job.

Hearing the various talks by the speakers was energizing and inspiring. Every one of them was a superior communicator with a compelling and relevant message. Every one of the speakers did a great job handling our questions.  Erick pulled together a balanced group of national and state level speakers in a very short time, a tribute to his hard work and influence.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley were quite simply amazing.  For me, their life stories were far more compelling and inspiring that the life story of a certain Supreme Court Justice nominee.  They are all fierce advocates for our Conservative perspective, and staunch defenders of the Constitution.  These are without question the candidates that should be elected to serve.  They get it, completely.

Thanks to everyone who made this possible.  Like the proverbial Cubs fan, I say ‘wait till next year’!

We have a Congress and Senate that is made up of lawyers — at least 90% have a legal background.  We have a handful of doctors and a sprinkling of engineers and business owners.

So it can’t be a surprise that what they’re coming up with in health care is a complete muddle. Why do we expect anything cogent or useful to come from a series of debates and meetings among lawyers?  These are the same folks that have given us labor laws and environmental laws, and the paragon of insanity known as our tax law.

Instead of having them design the system through law, why don’t we ask them just to set up the basic framework of laws that enables fair competition and affordability?  What we really need them to do is wade through the morass of laws they’ve already passed and cut out the ones that aren’t working.

A far simpler approach that might work. If they were interested in results.

Since the news yesterday that the House members voted on a bill that did not exist and could not be read in its entirety, why can’t someone or some group that is affected by the law bring suit in federal court to have the law struck down?

Watching the Markey-Waxman Bill lurching through the charade the Democrats have made of the legislative process, I can only ask:  is it time for the Republicans to walk out?  

It is clear that the Democrats want no true give-and-take.  In spite of all their words of ‘bi-partisan’ efforts and support, they are interested in ramming things through with false melodrama about the crisis and that ‘this is the moment’ to accomplish whatever it is that they’re attempting.

This last adventure, where the 1,091 page bill is completely scrapped and a 300 page amendment put in its place at the last second is proof positive that there is no reason to participate.  I think ALL the Republicans should go to the microphones and explain that any bill that can’t be read prior to a vote will not get their participation. Period.  They should take today off and go play golf, or better yet, get on the phones and converse with the thousands calling in today to register their opposition.  Anyone remaining in the House Chamber for the vote should have to answer to Rep. Boehner, and maybe lose a little office budget or perks.

If no Republicans participated, the Democrats would bluster and accuse them of being roadblocks, but that’s happening anyhow. Inevitably the Democrats would have to retract, because at their core, they have no resolve.  They constantly are trying to enlist support from even a handful of Republicans so they can claim bi-partisan support.  Loss of that support would make them fully responsible, and they would be unwilling to go that far.

The whole thing is beneath the honor of the office they hold.  They should be ashamed.  We should hold them accountable.

The breaking news this morning is a report that representatives from ‘the health care industry’ have developed a plan to save $2Trillion dollars over the next decade so that the President can get his universal health care plan.

This bit of news should send warning signals to everyone involved.  The gist of the story is that the “health care industry” sees the need for a preemptive strike to save their enterprises from federal intervention.  They hope that they can avoid the fate of the auto industry and the “Chicago Way” which has forced enormous change upon them.

As I’ve been reading and listening to the run-up of this topic in the past couple of weeks, I kept returning to one important point — Why has health care become so completely intertwined with employment?  Why is the government, under Obama’s plan, making it mandatory for employers to offer health insurance and penalizing those who do not?  It really makes no sense to do this.  Think about it– employers do not provide automobile or homeowner’s insurance, and those issues are at least as important; more people have auto accidents than need heart transplants.  Without a car,  you can’t get to work in most cases–so why isn’t there a need to do this?

The answer is probably not easy to come by.  With health insurance being the responsibility of the business that employs you, it relies on another business to provide it.  Two business entities that require something of each other can develop effective and low cost solutions–that’s capitalism.  However, what’s missing in this case is that the receiver of the services, the employee, is not part of the process, unless they are inserted into the mix through labor unions (another business entity–you can say all you want about their role as worker’s representatives, but their control of union dues, etc have turned them into businesses). The medical service (hospital/doctor/clinic) is added to the group to actually provide care when needed, so a fourth business entity, with its own requirements, adds to the complexity.  When you add government regulators to the arena, you now have 5 large entities with bureaucracies all interacting with very little concern for the actual ‘customer.’  No wonder the system is so ineffective and costly.

Going to ’single payer’ systems or government run health care only solves part of the complexity.  The union no longer needs to be significantly involved because there’s only ‘one plan.’  The insurance companies willl still be involved, but like companies which support Medicare, their role is to be a ‘government contractor’ and to make everything a ‘commodity’ (not much room here for innovation or improvement). Companies will still need their staffs, government staffs will grow even larger, and hospital administration will become as streamlined and effective as the local tax office or IRS (which it is already–it can only get worse!).  Doctors and health care providers will only be allowed to charge set fees, so their ability to increase revenue will wither away and they will not be looking to establish new ways to treat patients that are not part of the ‘authorized treatments,’ since they may not be reimbursed by the system.  In short, this is a terrible future ahead.

Now, back to my original point.  Look at auto insurance, for example.  There is a robust set of companies offering something that is required by law.  Some state government insurance commissions have limited oversight to ensure that consumers are not being ripped off, and most states have minimum mandatory levels of coverage–but other than that, the intervention in the marketplace is fairly benign.  Consumers are free to choose whatever company they want, and the competition for individual consumers helps the companies innovate and keep costs low (think GEICO, Progressive, State Farm, etc.).  The auto insurance companies provide consistent competitive pressure on the ‘health care providers’ (in this case auto-body shops and the like), and in general the system works pretty well.  The auto insurance companies have also pooled resources to study car crashes and recommend design changes (airbags, crushable bumpers, etc) as well as supporting ‘cultural changes’ like not driving under the influence, car seats and the like.  It is true that they have a robust set of lobbyists in Washington and the state capitals, but their legislative efforts don’t appear to be outside the norm.

In general, the systems seems to work OK, without having to go to your employer’s HR department, talk to your union rep, or call the insurance company’s national headquarters. 

The same is true for life insurance, even more so.

So why does health insurance need to be so different?  I think we would be far better off without the layers of involvement.  I would much prefer having the options to set up a Health Savings Account and go find a health insurance provider on my own, and have that insurance ‘honored’ by the health care provider of my choice.  With the internet and availability of information, I believe that ordinary consumers would be better off working the issues on their own behalf.

The alternatives being discussed with government based health care are just plain awful.  We need to break away and ‘think different’ before it is too late.

I’m a bit surprised that none of the RedState wits have failed to notice the hopefully unintended connection between the Chrysler bailout and the President’s leadership style…

 A fiat is an arbitrary decree made by someone with ultimate authority (and no accountability).

I’ve been laughing on several levels at the feds’ combination of Chrysler and Fiat as the means to rescue the company, but it was a masterstroke to find a way to tie this altogether linguistically.  I can imagine the brainstorming sessions at the White House, where some 3rd level aide mistakes Obama’s question “Why shouldn’t we just do this with a fiat?” and finding out the next day that the aide has arranged merger talks with an Italian automaker….

Have they not been paying attention? The merger between Chrysler and Daimler (who build better cars than Fiat, for sure) was an unmitigated disaster.  

How then can merging two anemic and struggling companies (Chrysler and Fiat) possibly result in something stronger?  The lame excuse that Fiat knows how to build smaller cars is just so bad it deserves no comment.

Had they really wanted to fix Chrysler, Cerebrus should never have hired Mr. Nardelli.  They would have instead given control of the company to members of the team that conceived the Prowler and Challenger and told them to make an economical car–and it would already have been making the auto show circuit and creating buzz.

Putting Fiat and Chrysler together will be entertaining fodder for the business pages, but it will be an ultimate disaster.

A Red State post earlier this week on the impact of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on the 2012 primaries prompted me to think once again about the election process.  I’ve been troubled by the way that small states have had unusual sway in the process and how the tortuous process has led to the way-too-early-demise of various candidates.  ”Super Tuesday” and other things have really twisted the process into an unhealthy shape.  Last cycle’s comedies of state legislatures trying to be ‘first in line’ became comical, and the draconian response by both the Democrat National Committee and Republican National Committee didn’t really restore the process, either.

The failed attempts at regulating campaign finance with the FEC and McCain-Feingold are also contributing to the chaos.  Last cycle’s experience shows: 1) that an enormous amount of money can be raised quickly;2) the FEC  can’t act effectively to stop abuses of the law during the process.   The myth that it takes two years to get things in place should also be tossed aside;  making the process this difficult hasn’t led to higher quality candidates or races.  Money has not been a sole determinant in winning, either, although it obviously helps.

I propose we try the following steps:

– Make it illegal to start an exploratory committee or other fundraising source until Jan 1 of the election year. Let local parties do their best to establish grass roots organizations and focus first on principles, not candidates. Deciding on candidates too early in the process is not healthy, as is the process of establishing the ‘front runner’ two years ahead based on the amount of funding raised, rather than any other measure.

– On July 1 of the year preceeding the election, the heads of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, along with the Governors of the respective states conduct a lottery to establish the order of the primaries and caucuses.  The first election would be held on the first Tuesday of February and no more than the first 4 states could hold primaries on that date.  On each subsequent Tuesday, for 13 weeks, the next 4 states would hold their elections, with the last election Tuesday held for the the last of the 50 states & Puerto Rico, according to their order of selection.  

The randomness of the drawing would combine small, medium and large states in an unpredictable order and end the silliness of “if we can convince a small number of folks in Iowa we’re going to rocket ahead.”  By making it impossible to know which states come first, we could end the perpetual campaigning and the spectacle of a Northeastern Senator moving his family to Iowa to ‘take the early lead.’  It would not advantage any candidate to start heavily campaigning in one state or another months ahead of the primary; they might actually have to have their performance in a position of leadership speak for them instead of empty blather on the dinner circuit.

– Instead of endless campaigning, the states could sponsor forums or gatherings where candidates would have to articulate details important to the specific local/regional/national perspective and really show some grasp of issues in dialogue that is not staged or scripted to the extent that our debates currently are. Instead of journalists being the questioners, let’s try real citizens or actual experts in energy, finance and the Constitution.

We need to take any action that restores the process and enables more voter participation and influence. The current media-and-money driven process has harmed our ability to identify leaders with good ideas, character and records of accomplishment and encourage them to take the path toward election and public service.  What we have now is a method where individuals choose themselves and get financial backing to saturate us with images and feelings so that we ‘feel good’ about electing them without understanding what they will accomplish once elected.

News reports that Representative Pete Stark of California has been claiming his residence in Maryland as his primary residence for tax purposes shows another example of outsourcing.  This time, the folks in his district have decided to outsource their legislative seat to a man who makes two trips a month back to the home district, but for all other intents and purposes is a resident of the state of Maryland.

The US Constitution, Article 2, sections 1 and 2 are very clear on the requirements of eligibility to serve in Congress.  The most important parts are that the members must meet the qualifications to serve in the ‘most numerous’ House of the State Legislature, and that the member be an inhabitant of the state for which he is elected.  Using the qualifications from the California Constitution, Article 4, Section 2(c), the representative must have been an inhabitant of California for at least a year, and a US citizen for at least 3 years to qualify as an elected representative of the State district.

Members of Congress and the Senate have a difficult job, which requires them to be in Washington a great deal of time.  No one begrudges them the right to a house of their choice while they serve their constituents. 

Representative Stark, however, seems to have crossed a line here, and he should be held accountable.  If his ruse is to avoid paying $3,800 per year in taxes, what does that say about his character?  If the voters in his district are so apathetic as to continue this arrangement, what does it say about them?  They evidently only need a professional lobbyist to represent them, because that’s essentially what he has become.

If he has become such an insider that he only barely visits his district and is not eligible to vote there, how does he meet the Constitutional test?  Why isn’t someone taking action?

Speaker Pelosi should add Mr. Stark to the long line of things to look into after Reps Jefferson, Franks and Rangel.  

If the members of Congress will not act in ways that respect their role in the nation of laws that we strive to be, how can they expect the citizens to do otherwise?

This past week, the President launched his Health Care Summit and named his nominee to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Governor Sebelius.  During these events he spoke eloquently of ’shared responsibility,’ and like a lot of his speeches, this seemed to be something both profound and appropriate.

But like most of his speeches, a bit of thinking about the words leads to a different conclusion.  In fact, this phrase, ’shared responsibility’  should be quickly exposed as the oxymoron that it is.  

Merriam’s on-line dictionary defines responsibility as “the quality or state of being responsible as  moral, legal or mental accountability,”  with accountability defined as “accountability is the willingness to account for one’s actions.”  There is no notion that someone should be held to account for the actions of others.

So, in the case of health care, exactly what is this ’shared responsibility’ the President speaks of?  Why am I responsible or accountable for the health of others, or for the provision of their care?  If I am to be responsible, how will I be held accountable?  How will I know when I’m doing too little or too much? If I am to share this accountability, how will I know when I’ve done what I should, but the others who share the responsibility are not? If others are not pulling their share of the load, how do I remedy that?  

There seem to be no clear answers in the President’s proposal to these questions. Therefore, I do not believe that we should be willing to be held accountable for the result until the answers are provided.  This is particularly true of health care, since a large fraction of health care needs are caused by individual lack of responsibility in diet, exercise, and other aspects of individual choice.  Holding others accountable for individual actions is the quickest way to create division and distrust.

For months now, we’ve been treated to variations of assertions that “a time of crisis is a great opportunity.” First it was Rahm Emmanuel, then the President and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The endless repetition of the phrase is making it the first catch phrase of the new administration, taking its place among the ranks of Presidential sound bites such as “I did not have sex with that woman” and “Read My Lips, no new taxes,’ with just about as much benefit to the country.  

It is clear that the administration has emphasized the notion that we are in a crisis, or even a catastrophe “from which we may not recover” simply to justify extraordinary government intervention.  It is clear that creating and sustaining an atmosphere of crisis is the administration’s strategy for action, its way of achieving the rapid enactment of legislation to yank this country away from free market capitalism and freedom and toward socialism.

It is also clear that the ‘change’ that the administration promised in the campaign is being morphed into a more substantial transformation of government than most Americans initially assumed.  Now even Whoopi Goldberg is coming to an understanding that Obama might be doing more than she bargained for, based on her words on “The View” last week.

So there are two main points:  

1) Don’t buy into the idea. Things have been worse in our history, and in all but one case, known as the Great Depression, it was private sector action that restored the economy to health.  The fact that it’s called the Great Depression should be a clue that we don’t want to go there again–so we need to alter course now before it’s too late.  

2) Challenge the idea. If a tornado or flood  is destroying your house, you don’t spend time during the storm thinking about redesigning the house.  After the storm has passed, there may be time to rethink things–but not during the crisis!  

Now is not the time to cram National Health Care, free college education for all and a half trillion dollars of needless pork projects down the throat of the choking economy.  Now is not the time to expand the national deficit with redistribution plans that harm economic growth (by the Congressional Budget Office’s own analysis).

Now is the time to restore order and confidence in the financial system of the free market, and thus far we haven’t made a dent.  In fact, it has gotten demonstrably worse since the election, and the past six weeks of the new administration have steepened the slide, if anything.

The President and his team seem to be locked in and experiencing ‘target fixation,’ a condition that plagues military pilots, causing them to crash their aircraft right into the target rather than maneuvering to safety.

We need to use any means available to break this fixation before the economy crashes. Now. Not later.

We’ve heard since the financial crisis came to a head last September that it was essential to bailout the banks and the automakers because they ‘were too big to fail.’  We were assured that if we acted quickly and massively with financial aid, things would get back on track and the economic recession would be weakened and the economy would recover.

So the last days of the 110th Congress and Bush administration as well as the first days of the 111th Congress and Obama administration have been spent dealing massive amounts of our tax money at these issues.  When President Obama took over, the tone changed from a matter of urgency to one of ‘catastrophe’ and the bailing continued unabated. We’ve spent or obligated future funds into the Trillions of dollars, and we don’t seem to be making any progress.  The presence of money seems to have opened up a financial black hole, sucking up our economy with a quickening pace.

What has all of this done to the rest of us?  At last look, I think something more than 55% of all workers had some sort of privately held wealth in IRAs, 401k or 403(b) accounts.  All of those individuals were working hard, paying taxes and investing what they could to provide for themselves and they were doing pretty well.  Given my own experience, I was on track to being able to handle the future on my own terms, instead of surrendering total control to the Social Security administration in return for a relatively small, fixed income.  Since the financial market decline, that goal may be in jeopardy. If this decline continues without the historical trend to rebound in the months following a bear market, millions of us may have our plans altered and have to accept less than we worked to attain.  In a word, we will have failed to attain our goals, but apparently we’re too small to matter.

Trillions of dollars of wealth have been consumed by falling market prices–and those trillions were the best answer to the looming crisis for the Social Security fund.  With continued prosperity and real growth in the equities, individuals would have been able to care for themselves and delay seeking assistance from the government in order to retain greater control of their economic health.  Think about  it: if your IRA was able to provide 2 to 3 times your social security income, why would you opt for the lower amount with its restrictions on your ability to live as you desire?  I was actively trying to create the ability to delay the visit to the Social Security office for as long as possible so that I could maximize my freedom of choice.  I still intend to do so.  But the current spending binge and the inevitable increase in taxes and inflation to follow will cause that objective to be difficult, if not impossible to attain.  Why are we so committed to subjecting retirees to lives of financial mediocrity on limited fixed incomes?

With others of like mind, we could reduce the drag on the system and protect the economy for our children and grandchildren.  But now, this objective is going to be much more difficult to attain. We’re headed for a government based solution that will wreak havoc on the economy for decades, not months.  All because a group of individuals have obtained political power and governmental control to implement what they think is the best solution for us: one that decreases freedom, diminishes economic well being for all and causes greater interference in our lives than our Constitution or heritage would think necessary or proper.

The news this  morning indicates that AIG, one of the companies that started the bailout mania, is asking for $30B more in government aid, and the Obama administration seems inclined to provide it.  Both GM and Chrysler have indicated that they need more, but have a less enthusiastic response for now.  Citigroup is being infused with even more government money, and Fannie and Freddie just got another $400B.  All of these ‘pop ups’ seem to indicate a serious failure of the initial strategy.  

Who is the financial equivalent to General Petreus to suggest an alternative approach?

While we’re at it, what’s the exit strategy for the bailouts?  When will we know when to stop?

During the Iraq war, the Bush administration was criticized for lack of an ‘exit strategy’, even though the President had clearly indicated that the US would remain only as long as the new Iraqi government asked us to, and that would happen when they were able to defend themselves and return stability to the country.

So now it’s President Obama’s turn.  What’s the basis for saying “mission accomplished?”  I haven’t heard one yet other than the mindless mantra about ’saving jobs.’  For the thousands already laid off from Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and other financial firms, that is meaningless.  Ditto for the thousands of jobs lost in Michigan that Senator McCain rightfully explained ‘were not coming back,’ for which he was heavily criticized.

The main dilemma is that government action will always tend to prolong crises, not solve them.  The main reason for this is that in order for government programs to continue, there must still be something to solve or ‘manage.’  Solving the crisis removes the need for the government involvement.  Ronald Reagan had a great quote about ‘the closest thing to eternity we will see on earth is a government program.’

In contrast, private companies that respond to crises are rewarded on the basis of ending the crisis. Companies that respond to oil spills, chemical hazards and the like are paid when the damage is controlled and eliminated.  The company that restored the collapsed bridge in the midwest was paid to build the bridge as quickly as possible, and it beat even that aggressive schedule.

Government agencies in contrast, tend to establish 5 year plans to prioritize and manage the issue, solving it over a much longer term.  This is what will happen to the bailout; banks will not be judged ‘healthy’ until the political leadership sees no further point in action, rather than using some traditional method of assessing the banks’ health.

Look at the way the Katrina recovery effort has progressed to get an idea of a government led rescue of an economy.  Four years later, the federal government is still spending large sums of money–because there is always something that ’should be done.’  The National Guard just this past week finally withdrew from the area.  Unfortunately, the job is not done, if by ‘done’ we mean all the lives affected by Katrina being restored to pre-Katrina status.  In truth, many can never be fully restored because of the losses they suffered.

The same is true of the bailouts and financial meltdown. We will be told that years of federal involvement are needed to manage the crisis.  If we allow this, history will repeat itself and we will suffer a lost decade like the 1930s in the US or the 1990s in Japan.  This is not a good idea.

Mr. President, I ask you to reflect on the history of America and trust in ‘We the People’ instead of ‘the government.’  We are Americans, and we have a rich and lasting history of doing what others do not.  We tamed rivers, built railroads, industry, cities and farms because we had the most powerful force available: freedom.  Our Constitution guarantees our freedoms and the opportunity we all seek:  to be able to find our own way to whatever we define as success.  As the Declaration puts it, to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’

We the people are greater than our government, because it was formed to serve us, not the other way around.  Our economy is powered by the decisions of nearly 300 million individuals acting as family members, employees, employers, corporations, partnerships, public servants, non profit workers and volunteers.  We are often acting as more than one of these parties simultaneously, and we are guided by our moral principles, self interest and stewardship of this great country to enable a future of prosperity and freedom.  No amount of analysis, simulation or committee deliberations can hope to anticipate or understand the impact of these individual decisions or actions.  Attempts to ‘manage’ this complex network of decisions and results will always lag reality and distort the result.

We have believed, and many continue to believe, that government serves us best when it enables our individual freedom of action. Many of us do not share your belief that government is the only means to solve our current situation.  We have faced such trials before, and we have solved them best when government has ensured that the framework of laws that protect opportunity and enable individual action are used to empower individuals to take action that benefits themselves and others.

We do not need to be stimulated into action; we are Americans and are born to act.  We don’t need to be centrally managed; our diverse geography, resources and people need to individually harness the local talents to achieve what is best for that particular area.  We have shown this over and over again in the past, and it will be true of our future.

To restore our nation to its prosperity, we need the government to act wisely and minimally.  We need the government to set the rules for commerce, and ensure that everyone has to operate with the same rule book:  no sweetheart loans, preferential treatment, arbitrary quotas, bailouts or other distortions should be enacted unless it is the last resort.  This last resort should be taken with deliberation and thorough debate and understanding–not rushed through with partisan blindness.  

We need the government to set the rules and then stick with them: our banking system is in crisis now, at least in part, because there is uncertainty as to what tomorrow, next week or next month will bring. Government needs to set the course and steady the ship of state, not toss about on the waves without direction.

We need the government to understand that coercing some to surrender their wealth in order to give it to others, no matter how deserving they are, undermines the economy.  Instead, the government should encourage the voluntary transfer of wealth to those in need and resort to government aid in only the rarest and most troubling of cases.  We are a compassionate people and can act swiftly in times of crisis as we showed after 9/11, during Katrina and several of the earthquakes in California.  Government can act as a logistics conduit for essential supplies and provide the basis for sustaining civil order, but transferring wealth from one group to another is always a source of waste and incompetence when done by the government over the long haul.  

We need the government to be exercised by moral  people that understand the difference between wants and needs, rights and benefits.  A government intent on providing every need and want of its citizens, to paraphrase Jefferson, will be large enough to take everything away from them as well.  Efforts to ‘tax the rich’ will end up in disaster, as there will never be enough to placate those that are in ‘need.’  From what I see of recent IRS statistics, it would take seizure of all of the adjusted gross income of every small business, limited partnership and individual who reported income of more than $1M in 2006 to pay for the ’stimulus’ bill and its associated interest.  After taking all of that wealth, what will we do for the next year when we are expected to need as much?

If you want to stimulate the economy, take actions that inspire Americans to act:  give them their money to use for their best interests, and rely on their judgement and maturity to choose actions that provide stewardship of our country at the same time.  If you believe as Senator Kerry does that individuals are not fit to make those decisions, then I urge you to reconsider.  We are capable and can be trusted.

If you want the American people to assist with the banking crisis, give them incentives to keep their money in banks while you enforce the laws on the books to keep the conduct of the banks legal and ethical.

If  you want the American people to have faith in the future, set the rules and the course toward freedom and opportunity and watch the people respond.  Do not try to centrally manage our actions or interests. We have done well enough on our own in the past and “Yes, we can” do it in the future.

The White House has their recovery website (http://www.recovery.gov)up and it promises transparency and accountability because ‘its your money.’  I am glad that they realize that simple fact.

Their promise of transparency and accountability stumbles out of the gate like much else they’ve done in the past several weeks.  When you click on the bar chart on the left margin of the site to see where your money is going, it takes you to another page full of pastel colored bubbles with various cost categories.

The biggest bubble (there’s a message here somewhere with this symbolism…) seems to be labeled ‘tax relief’ and totals $288B.  Nearly 37% of the total…wow! great!  Well, hang on.  

It seems that the finely printed note at the bottom of the page indicates that of the $288B for ‘tax relief’, $15B is for infrastructure, $61B is for ‘protecting the vulnerable,’ $25B is for education and training and $22B is for energy; all of thes are other categories in other ‘bubbles’ on the chart. So the remainder of real ‘tax relief’ is $165B, or less than 10% of the total income taxes collected….and this is the part that’s coming to us as $13 per week, starting April 1.  Since they put these notes on the page, I guess they think they’re being transparent; being clear and easy to understand is another matter.

Fox News is reporting that the Porkulus bill passed in such a rush last week includes caps on executive pay that were much more restrictive than the President or the Treasury Secretary wanted.  Senator Chris Dodd is credited with inserting language for the tougher restrictions.

The President was all over the airwaves and newspapers calling this “his package.”  Now we find out that it’s not so much….screwed over by one of his own guys!  What about all the praise and wonder over Obama’s masterful handling of the bill?  Seems somewhat undeserved at this point, and we haven’t even gotten to the good part–actually implementing the bill’s provisions.

It would probably have helped to actually have read the bill before passing it, eh?

Hand me some duct tape; my head’s starting to explode.

The posts here at Red State are forceful expressions of the anger and frustration caused by Congress and the President for their part in the ’stimulus’ bill.  Everyone who has written understands the implications and impact of this horrendous and flawed legislation.  Everyone is rightfully angry, and many have come up with a number of creative solutions to the question ‘What do we do?”

We’re in a fight, for sure.  But we can’t fight angry; in spite of the image of Rocky Balboa taunting his opponent to hit him until the anger surges through Rocky and he turns the tide of the fight, this rarely works in politics.  We have to out-think and out maneuver the Democrats, and that’s not as easy to do if we’re full-up anger.  Anger can be a great motivator, but then we need to channel the anger to well thought out actions.

One post has likened the issue to a spreading cancer.  I like that analogy, and his suggestion to ’starve’ the cancer to kill it.  We should look for all possible ways to do so.  We have to remember that the cancer is extremely aggressive and large already, and not fool ourselves into thinking this will be a short course of treatment.

Other posts have alluded to changing people’s perception of this bill.  Many have worked at this and done such a great job that the President felt compelled to go out and ’sell’ the bill to America.  He even committed some unforced errors to compound the issue, such as his remarks at Caterpillar.  We need to keep the Democrats on defense with more of this. Newt Gingrich plans to highlight a ’stupid idea’ from the stimulus every day for the next month.  This may be closing the barn after the horse has escaped, but it will at least provide the basis for some doubt and scepticism of the next great ideas– more bank bailouts, etc.

We need find more ways to slow the growth of the cancer.  We can try fighting the projects themselves using environmental impact, economic studies, etc.  We can challenge the local leaders as they apply for the grants to build these frivolous dog parks and water slides and make them look foolish.  We can demand that local leaders retain their lawful authority and not surrender for a few coins from the feds.

But we also need to find ways to fight the source of the fight: people with low expectations and no hope will always be attracted to those who promise to solve their problems for them.  That’s where the political power comes from, and that is the main source of this cancer.  We have to show people that relying on government for their lives  over the long  term is  the wrong path.  We need to find the folks that have emerged from poverty and highlight their stories.  We need to convince others that they can do the same, and then support them through private means as they do so.

President Obama went to great lengths to associate himself with the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, going so far as to use the same Bible as Lincoln used for the oath of office.  The media chimed in with lots of fluffy comparisons about the two and we all waited with eagerness to see what would unfold.

Before the celebration of President Lincoln’s birthday, we found out what to expect.  Honesty is a 19th century virtue; it has no place in modern politics.  When President Obama makes promises to ’spend the public’s money wisely’ and to provide transparency and time for public input, we now know that he really doesn’t mean it.  Unlike “Honest Abe,” the President doesn’t appear to worry about saying one thing and doing another.

The whole course of action to enact the stimulus bill was filled with misdirection, misinformation and apparently deliberate lies.  The biggest stretch of the truth happened in two ways: 1) that we’re in a crisis where action must happen fast or we will be unable to recover and 2) that the bill will actually stimulate the economy.  The result is that our Congress and Senate have committed the country to spend more money than ever before on a list of things that few apparently really knows for sure, and even fewer believe it will improve the economy.

This mindless and reckless behavior on the part of the Congress, Senate and the President will have an impact on our lives for many years, and yet they couldn’t take the time to actually read and understand the bill.  The nation would not have gone broke over the weekend; no one was in personal peril; no war was imminent; this rush to action was a manufactured falsehood.

But the larger question is:  If we can’t trust the Congress and the President with this important issue, what else is at risk?  The answer,  I believe, is clear:  Everything. They cannot be allowed to change anything else: the Fairness Doctrine, Health Care, Education, Gun ownership, or any other of the issues that arose in the campaign.

These folks are relentless and uncompromising.  They are not interested in bipartisanship or common solutions; negotiations will be useless until the cost of not negotiating is more than they are willing to bear. If we care about any of the other issues, we must meet their relentlessness with our own.

The swiftness and complete audacity of the President’s actions in the last three weeks perplexed and shocked many of us. We were all lulled by decency and ‘hope’ to allow a little bit of time before becoming openly antagonistic to the President and his staff as part of our tradition of peaceful transition of power. 

The actions of the President and the Democrats in the House and Senate should be a sobering call to action for all who believe that freedom and the free exercise of choice will be the best answer to the current crisis.  I personally do not believe that ‘government is the only means to solve the crisis.’  As Einstein has famously said, to solve a problem, you have to use different thinking than what got you into the problem in the first place.  Government intervention in the mortgage and lending business, the imposition of ‘mark to market’ through Sarbanes-Oxley and other actions caused this crisis.  More government action, and more ‘throwing money at the problem’ will not solve it.  This is confirmed by the fact that Secretary Geithner has no clue, or plan in hand to solve the issue.

While we watch the federal government thrash around and make things worse before things get better, I have been trying to figure out what I can do to safeguard my own family and try to influence the actions of our leadership.  I am working the first part with simple, common sense principles, saving and working hard.  

To influence the actions of our leadership, I’ve decided to:

– Become very familiar with my local and state government leaders.  

– Research the portions of Porkulus that may be headed to the local area and state.

– Convey the idea to the local/state leaders that any actions they take to avail themselves of funds for water parks, dog parks and other totally frivolous things will be interpreted as an absence of leadership and stewardship on their part, sufficient to make them unworthy of voter support in the upcoming year.  If they don’t use the funds and we ‘lose’ them, I consider that a victory.

– Further convey to the leaders that if funds and decisions are flowing from Washington, that suggests that they are irrelevant, and also unworthy of voter support.

– Urge my state legislators to support the notion of a state resolution or law that actively asserts the State’s rights to powers not enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government. It’s time we put the 10th Amendment to use.

– Relentlessly contact my Representative and Senators to insist that they tirelessly pursue any reasonable means to attach riders to other bills, etc, to roll back as much as possible of the Economic Recovery Act.  I also believe that they should not support legislation in the name of compromise and bipartisanship, if the Democrats continue to operate the way they have in the last 3 weeks.  It would be better for the Republican members of Congress to work on their golf game than to hang around and be treated with this level of hostility and indifference. 

It’s time for our side to stop being conciliatory and reasonable until the Democrats begin showing actual progress toward constructive engagement.  The Democrats seem to need the appearance of bipartisan agreement–perhaps because they know that the public’s support for many of their actions will wear thin quickly.  I will urge my Representative and Senators to withold any support for any legislation that deepens the plunge toward socialism or federal power.

Tip O’Neill used to say ‘all politics is local.’  I think it’s time to begin a conservative version of relentless, yet positive action at the local level and force the process up to the  federal level.  The Democrats may temporarily hold the high ground at the federal level, but they will eventually have to bend if we can form an effective siege of local platoons.

Unlike the liberals, I have faith that the American people still have what it takes to solve their own problems and work for their own versions of satisfaction in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It has always been true that some people need assistance, and our history is replete with examples where we have done so; however, we are at our best when that help is voluntary, not coerced; innovative, not bureaucratic.